I only listed them the other way because that was what was already being done, but wouldn't it make more sense to have them listed by city rather than channel number? Kirjtc2 18:23, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Agreed. It may still be coherent in states that don't have any (or many) duplicate channel numbers, but in states with lots of stations it's silly. Listing by city would make much more sense. Iroll 22:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I have started doing that with the following: Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. However, the work is long and prone to errors, so if any one of you want to continue this project, go right ahead (but please follow the format as seen with Massachusetts, which I am using).
- The way I am doing this is by looking up lists of DMA's in the US and grouping the stations accordingly. For any stations whose cities are questionable, I look up their ZIP codes and use titantv.com to ascertain the nearest DMA (by matching station listings in Titan TV to the station group listings here). Pentawing 03:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)